“Literally”

I can go back to the origin of Hurst in the late 1800’s and show where they knowingly lied to push their agendas.

I can’t give any form of media as much credit as you are - I’ve read too many lies and half-truths.

Lol, no, they aren’t.

Linux isn’t the desktop of choice for business, which is what MS cares about. That’s where they make their money.

And that means SMB will run Windows Server to manage user accounts and the environment in general.

Add Excel to that equation, and Linux has no relevance in the business world (and before you mention any OSS competitor I have one word: tables. And I’ll add decades of automation).

Yes, you could do things like Linux as the OS then run virtualization layers or Wine or whatever, but there’s no value in that for a typical SMB, and a lot of risk.

Enterprise is even more of a lock-in for MS, because it’s a simple choice, they get all the support they need from MS, and it “just works” for them.

MS has a mature user, machine, and software management infrastructure that’s well known by millions of technical people. Desktop and office apps have the same familiarity (and again I’ll mention decades of extant automation built around excel).

Linux doesn’t stand a chance against MS in a business environment for the desktop. Can it be done? Sure. But in very specific use-cases and hoping you’ll never grow into a circumstance where you suddenly need Office or some other element to interop with a vendor or client. This is exactly the situation management doesn’t want to be blamed for.

Servers are different question altogether, and have been since 2000.

I mean you can’t really make that claim. You have no idea what a Harris presidency would be like until it occurred.

You may say you believe that would be the case, and even put forth arguments supporting the prediction, but that’s all it would be.